Cell phones

Mowery’s written account of Kaylee Goncalves’ phone does not match Walla Walla’s own field report.

Download full packet (PDF) Comparison write-up only

Call it what it is. On November 25, 2022, WWPD documented that Det. Lawrence Mowery took Kaylee’s phone and a USB of its AFU extraction with him that afternoon. His Sequence 59 never says that. He writes that he left “the phones” and that Deane later returned “the four devices.” Deane’s Sequence 50 says three phones and a hard drive.

Side-by-side

Issue	Mowery Seq. 59	Ruchert / Deane
11/25 intake	Does not say he brought four phones and took one back the same day	Four Apple iPhones. One designated priority — Kaylee’s (22M-1812).
Kaylee’s phone that day	“I left the phones with Det Ruchert to be extracted.”	GrayKey AFU extraction completed. USB burned. Mowery retrieved the USB and that phone the same afternoon.
11/29 pickup	“The four devices”	Ruchert: three remaining devices + Mowery’s HDD. Deane: three cell phones and a hard drive.
Locked?	Family PIN “did not unlock.” Later: limited extraction on locked phone.	AFU extraction on the priority phone on 11/25. Years later the State still told the defense MPD had been “unable to unlock this phone.”

The source pages

Mowery Sequence 59 page 1 — 01 — MPD Det. Lawrence Mowery, Sequence 59, page 1

Mowery Sequence 59 page 2 — 02 — Mowery Sequence 59, page 2

Deane Sequence 50 — 03 — MPD Det. Justin Deane, Sequence 50 — three phones + HDD

04 — WWPD Ruchert page 2 — four phones, Kaylee priority, AFU

05 — WWPD Ruchert page 3 — three remaining devices on 11/29

State discovery exhibit page 5 — 07 — State discovery exhibit, page 5

State discovery Kaylee phone still locked — 08 — State discovery: “MPD has been unable to unlock this phone”

Do they want it public, or hidden? (PDF)

Do they want it public, or hidden?

Wanting Kaylee’s phone back is not the same as wanting the public to see what is on it. Alivea Goncalves, Karen Laramie, and Stacy, James, and Maizie Chapin sued Walla Walla to stop release of the mirrored phone data. Case 26-2-00735-36. Steve and Kristi are not the petitioners.

On September 28, 2026, about 48:32, Steve told Courtroom Confidential they never had a code, never unlocked it, and are brute-forcing it now, four or five years. About 52:18 he said once it went into GrayKey, the line was that it was locked and did not have to be given back. Det. Ruchert’s report says a GrayKey AFU extraction of item 22M-1812 was finished on November 25, 2022, and a USB was burned that day. Both cannot be the working account.

The packet is Heather Black’s Public Records Act request, those brute-force lines, and the summons, notice of appearance, and complaint. The request asks for steps, last unlock, lock events, and pocket state only, November 12 at midnight through November 13 at noon. No messages. No photos. On October 6, 2026, the City put that request on hold because it had been served.

Questions the pages create

Where is the USB Ruchert burned on 11/25? Produce it and the hash values.
Where was Kaylee’s physical phone from the afternoon of 11/25 until 11/29?
What did Mowery do with that phone and that USB during those four days?
Why does Sequence 59 describe the phone as locked after an AFU extraction already existed?
Why does a later discovery response still claim MPD cannot unlock it?